On 03/13/2012 01:52 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Ary Manzana"<a...@esperanto.org.ar> wrote in message
news:jjmhja$3a$2...@digitalmars.com...
On 03/12/2012 10:58 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
The problem today is that JS is the "next cool thing", so everyone is
jumping on the bandwagon, and everything from a single-page personal
website to a list of links to the latest toaster oven requires JS to
work, even when it's not necessary at all. That's the silliness of it
all.
T
It's not the next cool thing. It makes thing more understandable for the
user. And it makes the web transfer less content,
That gets constantly echoed throughout the web, but it's a red herring: Even
if you handle it intelligently like Adam does (ie, lightweight), the amount
of data transfer saved is trivial. We're talking *part* of *one* measly HTML
file here. And even that can be gzipped: HTML compresses *very* well. Yes,
techincally it can be less transfer, but only negligably so. And bandwith is
the *only* possible realistic improvement here, not speed, because the speed
of even a few extra K during a transfer that was already going to happen
anyway is easily outweighed by the overhead of things like actually making a
round-trip to the server at all, plus likely querying a server-side DB, plus
interpreting JS, etc.
If, OTOH you handle it like most people do, and not like Adam does, then for
brief visits you can actually be tranferring *more* data just because of all
that excess JS boilerplate people like to use. (And then there's the
start-up cost of actually parsing all that boilerplate and then executing
their initialization portions. And in many cases there's even external JS
getting loaded in, etc.)
The problem with optimization is that it's not a clear-cut thing: If you're
not looking at it holistically, optimizing one thing can either be an
effective no-op or even cause a larger de-optimization somewhere else. So
just because you've achived the popular goal of "less data transer" upon
your user clicking a certain link, doesn't necessarily mean you've won a net
gain, or even broken even.
True.
I always have to remember this interesting talk about saying "This is
faster than this" without a scientific proof:
http://vimeo.com/9270320
